Seems the recent change in age of consent is illogical; did LS somehow get a hyper-conservative government and that's what caused that change? Nearly all of the most democratic countries in the world have lowered the age of consent. It's also highly illogical and realistically problematic for a government to change a law in the manner to increase it after it being lower. There's no way in court a judge can find a persons in wrong doing for maintaining relationships, or not dissolving previous relationships in light of such a change in law. Legally, trying to request that would be a nightmare considering its pretty much a basic human rights violation to say two people, who were previously by law able to be together and began seeing each other due to it being legal, now can't.

Did anyone consider the realistic legal aspects of this change of law, or was it a simple edit of numbers in the text? Did anyone consider the major legal problems revolving around persons previously declared to be able to give their consent, now suddenly not being able to, and the major violation of that persons right to freedom?

The age of consent in California is 18. That's what we're portraying.

There's 10 total states who have the age of consent of 18, including California.

That's not the point please read my post first, your answer makes me think you haven't. It was changed for 18 to 16 to 18. My argument is about the problems in realism concerning the change. Also PD shouldn't be able to charge someone with a crime and imprison if there are legal problems with the charge itself.

Why should PD not? They do not interpret the law, but enforce it. If there is an "issue" then the Courts handle that. Surely, you would know that. It is an out of character modification due to the portrayal of California to enhance realism. It does not seem to be affecting anyone's roleplay.

In my world, there was someone very dear to me. You've always reminded me of that person. That person was like a hero to me but is neither in this world or that one. So I did some reading about other worlds here, and I came to a curious conclusion. You are that person, Eine. I know...I know... It makes no sense. Perhaps it's even unsettling to hear such a thing! Whether I am wrong or you simply don't recall those days, I pledge my service to you fully. I'm not sure I'm always the most competent person in your group, but I will always give you my best!ungrateful fatherland, you will not even have my bones

Considering the fact that a person committing theft of an auto vehicle does not pose threat of immediate death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle, are owners allowed to shoot at persons actively attempting to steal their vehicles?

Considering the fact that a person committing theft of an auto vehicle does not pose threat of immediate death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle, are owners allowed to shoot at persons actively attempting to steal their vehicles?

According to the penal code; no. It's not up to a civilian, PF or CCW, to enforce this at all. If a vehicle is being stolen, said person should dial 911. Therefore, one can be charged with Attempted Murder or Murder, all depending on the outcome.

Considering the fact that a person committing theft of an auto vehicle does not pose threat of immediate death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle, are owners allowed to shoot at persons actively attempting to steal their vehicles?

According to the penal code; no. It's not up to a civilian, PF or CCW, to enforce this at all. If a vehicle is being stolen, said person should dial 911. Therefore, one can be charged with Attempted Murder or Murder, all depending on the outcome.

What's the outcome if he only injures him to prevent from stealing the vehicle? I've been shot numerous times while stealing a vehicle, not by the owner, but by a witness. I find this wrong in many ways.

Considering the fact that a person committing theft of an auto vehicle does not pose threat of immediate death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle, are owners allowed to shoot at persons actively attempting to steal their vehicles?

According to the penal code; no. It's not up to a civilian, PF or CCW, to enforce this at all. If a vehicle is being stolen, said person should dial 911. Therefore, one can be charged with Attempted Murder or Murder, all depending on the outcome.

What's the outcome if he only injures him to prevent from stealing the vehicle? I've been shot numerous times while stealing a vehicle, not by the owner, but by a witness. I find this wrong in many ways.

In most cases, the outcome would result in a charge for (1)07. Attempted Murder. Of course, this is rather circumstantial, and entirely depends on what actually happened. A firearms discharge would most likely result in the above-mentioned charge.

Seeing that brass knuckles are just being buffed, a penal code regarding to ownership metal knuckles should be introduced. It's kind of weird that LS has extremely strict knife regulations while metal knuckles are ignored.

For example, in Arkansas, it's legal to possess, conceal and even open carry any style blade of any length, but even there it's illegal to possess metal knuckles. There is only a few states where metal knuckles are not explicitly prohibited. California, the state that San Andreas is modeled after of course also prohibits metal knuckles, just as they do most things that even resemble weapons.

Seeing that brass knuckles are just being buffed, a penal code regarding to ownership metal knuckles should be introduced. It's kind of weird that LS has extremely strict knife regulations while metal knuckles are ignored.

For example, in Arkansas, it's legal to possess, conceal and even open carry any style blade of any length, but even there it's illegal to possess metal knuckles. There is only a few states where metal knuckles are not explicitly prohibited. California, the state that San Andreas is modeled after of course also prohibits metal knuckles, just as they do most things that even resemble weapons.

Why is (8)02. Evading A Peace Officer a felony, while for example (8)07. Flying Without A Pilot's License is a misdemeanor? Surely flying without knowing how to operate a damn helicopter is way more dangerous than failing to stop because you broke (11)02. Failure To Abide To A Traffic Control Device and cannot be bothered to pay the ticket? This seems completely and utterly broken to me. I'd say flip the two around, make evading a misdemeanor, but ONLY the regular, and not the high speed/oversized variations, and turn flying without a pilot license into a felony.

Suggest it to the Senate. It's a felony due to how LS:RP has always operated. Realistically, the crime for flying without a pilot license is on the decline.

In my world, there was someone very dear to me. You've always reminded me of that person. That person was like a hero to me but is neither in this world or that one. So I did some reading about other worlds here, and I came to a curious conclusion. You are that person, Eine. I know...I know... It makes no sense. Perhaps it's even unsettling to hear such a thing! Whether I am wrong or you simply don't recall those days, I pledge my service to you fully. I'm not sure I'm always the most competent person in your group, but I will always give you my best!ungrateful fatherland, you will not even have my bones

Sure. The Senate might agree. It's really just all in-character now and the only avenue to address it is the Senate.

In my world, there was someone very dear to me. You've always reminded me of that person. That person was like a hero to me but is neither in this world or that one. So I did some reading about other worlds here, and I came to a curious conclusion. You are that person, Eine. I know...I know... It makes no sense. Perhaps it's even unsettling to hear such a thing! Whether I am wrong or you simply don't recall those days, I pledge my service to you fully. I'm not sure I'm always the most competent person in your group, but I will always give you my best!ungrateful fatherland, you will not even have my bones

In my world, there was someone very dear to me. You've always reminded me of that person. That person was like a hero to me but is neither in this world or that one. So I did some reading about other worlds here, and I came to a curious conclusion. You are that person, Eine. I know...I know... It makes no sense. Perhaps it's even unsettling to hear such a thing! Whether I am wrong or you simply don't recall those days, I pledge my service to you fully. I'm not sure I'm always the most competent person in your group, but I will always give you my best!ungrateful fatherland, you will not even have my bones

Why should PD not? They do not interpret the law, but enforce it. If there is an "issue" then the Courts handle that. Surely, you would know that. It is an out of character modification due to the portrayal of California to enhance realism. It does not seem to be affecting anyone's roleplay.

We are not 'portraying' California, but has been repeatedly made clear since the inception of the server, San Andreas itself.